About Banned Host File Site
- Thread starter Jeennen
- Start date
-
Akiba-Online is sponsored by FileJoker.
FileJoker is a required filehost for all new posts and content replies in the Direct Downloads subforums.
Failure to include FileJoker links for Direct Download posts will result in deletion of your posts or worse.
For more information see this thread.
FileFactory.com = $10 per 1,000 downloads.
easy-share.com = Get paid $1 for 1000 ePoints you earn.
DepositFiles.com = $7.5 for 1000 downloads!
Uploading.com = We pay up to $20 per 1000 unique downloads.
uploadjockey.com = Earn up to $2 for 1000 downlods: Earn Money Uploading Files
Megaupload.com = 100000 reward points: One year premium + $100 USD
All sites are approved but they are cash host sites.
You should ban above all.
It seems unfair for banning cash sites.
easy-share.com = Get paid $1 for 1000 ePoints you earn.
DepositFiles.com = $7.5 for 1000 downloads!
Uploading.com = We pay up to $20 per 1000 unique downloads.
uploadjockey.com = Earn up to $2 for 1000 downlods: Earn Money Uploading Files
Megaupload.com = 100000 reward points: One year premium + $100 USD
All sites are approved but they are cash host sites.
You should ban above all.
It seems unfair for banning cash sites.
With Rapidshare, if you're are free member, you can get a premium membership for one month, when you reach 10000 "rapidpoints". One point is like one download of any of your hosted files. It's worth $ 6.99.
I think there is a difference if you can get cash directly for download hits, or if you get points that can be converted later, to advantages that are worth money. Getting "money" out of downloads is just part of the business.
Things should be sorted out, site by site. There was a discussion before, but I still don't understand what's wrong with getting $$$ from people clicking links.
What should stay forbidden is redirect links, they don't host anything, only take advantage of the whole system.
I think there is a difference if you can get cash directly for download hits, or if you get points that can be converted later, to advantages that are worth money. Getting "money" out of downloads is just part of the business.
Things should be sorted out, site by site. There was a discussion before, but I still don't understand what's wrong with getting $$$ from people clicking links.
What should stay forbidden is redirect links, they don't host anything, only take advantage of the whole system.
With Rapidshare, only the non-premium downloaders generate points... Unless they have changed it in the last couple months. People who post on "get paid per click" are looking to make a buck, which is not what the spirit of sharing is all about. People who host on the other sites are looking for reliability, not money making potential. MU MAY pay after a set number of clicks, but at least on this forum, seems like it would take years to get there.
Personally I avoid any post with image hosts with large amounts of popups or advertisments, and links to anything that is a pay per click host.
Personally I avoid any post with image hosts with large amounts of popups or advertisments, and links to anything that is a pay per click host.
The really incriminating sites are ones that simply redirect you to other file hosts, but force you to click through their ads in order to get the desired link -- the most notable of which would be linkbucks. In many cases, it's simply a person reposting someone else's uploads, eg: they're profiting from the work of another person.
I can sympathize with uploaders who are keen on taking advantage of various pay-per-click incentives, especially as they usually help with sharing (eg: by keeping files online longer, advanced file sharing options, etc). Generally as long as it's unobtrusive to the end user I think it would be fine, but as file hosts come and go everyday, it will always be taken on a case-by-case basis.
I can sympathize with uploaders who are keen on taking advantage of various pay-per-click incentives, especially as they usually help with sharing (eg: by keeping files online longer, advanced file sharing options, etc). Generally as long as it's unobtrusive to the end user I think it would be fine, but as file hosts come and go everyday, it will always be taken on a case-by-case basis.
Another point you should consider, if all downloads links go through these so called redirect hosts... what's keeping them from logging all that information and selling it to the highest bidder?
Call me paranoid and fold me a tin foil hat.
I see a difference between file sharing sites such as MF,MU and RS, and the somewhat more annoying such such as the aforementioned bitroad (which are mainly focused on making money and not the most important thing, keeping the users happy).
Incredibly long wait times and very slow downloads does not make a user happy.
Another advantage to a 'limited' list of allowed sites is that it's easier for users to 'buy' an account somewhere. If 80% of the files were hosted by for example Megaupload you'd simply buy an account there and save allot of hassle (or better yet, just use MediaFire).
My point, I agree with the ban an such sites.
Call me paranoid and fold me a tin foil hat.
I see a difference between file sharing sites such as MF,MU and RS, and the somewhat more annoying such such as the aforementioned bitroad (which are mainly focused on making money and not the most important thing, keeping the users happy).
Incredibly long wait times and very slow downloads does not make a user happy.
Another advantage to a 'limited' list of allowed sites is that it's easier for users to 'buy' an account somewhere. If 80% of the files were hosted by for example Megaupload you'd simply buy an account there and save allot of hassle (or better yet, just use MediaFire).
My point, I agree with the ban an such sites.
Simple solution to this problem. Get Modizilla firefox add-on Adblock Plus. Will block all the ads from those sites. I don't see why some of them are even blocked. Link protection is a must. There are so many reporters these days its not funny.